Gmail Is Not A Privacy Problem

Is there really informed consent among Gmail users? The real privacy issue is we're all getting by on a lot of trust.

10 Ways To Fight Email Overload

(click image for larger view and for slideshow)

In its motion to dismiss a privacy claim against its Gmail service, Google has made it clear that people sending email messages to Gmail users should not expect privacy.

"Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use Web-based email today cannot be surprised if their emails are processed by the recipient's [email provider] in the course of delivery. Indeed, 'a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties,'" said Google.

Consumer Watchdog, a group that has frequently objected to Google's privacy practices, calls this "a stunning admission," though it would more accurately be described as "established precedent," because the inline citation comes from a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland.

The advocacy group's advice, however, is fair enough: "People who care about their email correspondents' privacy should not use the Internet giant's service."

Indeed, people who care about their email correspondents' privacy should not be using email at all, or if they must, they should be using it only in conjunction with respected encryption tools. But the vast majority of those people do not care enough about privacy — their own or that of their correspondents — to acquire the technical expertise to effectively use encryption.

What Consumer Watchdog neglects to point out is that Google's attorneys are arguing that Gmail does not violate wiretap laws because "all users of email must necessarily expect that their emails will be subject to automated processing."

In a phone interview, Consumer Watchdog's John M. Simpson described the issue with Gmail thus: "They're opening up content and going through it."

The simple act of password protecting an email account is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' Quite like snail mail when the mailbox is under lock & key. Regardless of whether it is locked once a mailbox is put into use, it is considered federal property. As such, federal law states that it is a crime to tamper or vandalize a mailbox or its contents. Anyone found guilty of such crimes can be fined and incarcerated. So Google can consider it Google Property but should abide by the same standards for tampering as the U.S. Postal service where any type mail processing, routing & delivery comes with an expectation of privacy decreed by law.

Several readers say they don't mind Google opening their email to serve them ads. Where in Google's email agreement does it say they will restrict their snooping to that purpose? On the contrary, Google assumes your information, once submitted via Gmail, is their information. It's for your good that Google brings you the world's information; also for your good that it brings your information to the world. This is a company-centric view of privacy, one that overrides individuals, and one that I remain highly uncomfortable with, Hence, I pay for my Ymail service..

I'm really not surprised that Google has this attitude. I'm also not bothered that Google is scanning my email so it can send me targeted ads-- but I am a little bothered by the possibility the data might be used for more than that. I agree with Tom's overall point: If you don't treat the Internet like a surveillance state, you proceed at your own peril.

But this is the part that caught my attention. The Guardian pulled this quote from Google's argument:

"Just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS [electronic communications service] provider in the course of delivery."

Asinine. In this metaphor, Google somehow equates to a colleague's assistant? Google's more like the mail carrier.

This relates to Tom's problem. If Google wants to scan data and isn't breaking any laws while doing so, that's fine. No one makes you use Gmail, so Google can do what it wants. But if they're going to explain their policies, they should do so in a way that makes sense, and that is transparent about the implications of collected data. This half-assed metaphor is pretty much the antithesis of that.

As ham-handed as Google's WiFi data gathering adventure turned out to be, I can't help but think much of it was overblown. So far as I can tell, no one was harmed in any way by the data collection. Moreover, Google was collecting data that computer users failed to secure, much as one might listen in to an open police broadcast on an unsecured radio channel. It's not as if Google was hacking anyone's encryption or tapping cables NSA-style.

Well, there's no free lunch and even if very few would choose to pay, surely Google has a few spare, one-time developer cycles that could easily and quickly add a "do not scan" list to their mail mining operation. IMO, such an option would squelch most detractors whose current complaints have merit -- especially after Google's rather trite response.

Right on, Tom. It's useless and stupid to say "I'm shocked, shocked to learn what Google's Ts and Cs say." Right on again, about what to do if you don't like it. Use self-help. Start using tools like Tails & TOR for browsing, Textcrypt for text messages and Cellcrypt for mobile phone calls. Then, take everything off of Dropbox, Instagram, iCloud, etc, and stash it all in a Cloudlocker (www.cloudlocker.it) which works just the same but stays in the house where they still need a warrant to get inside.

I'm sure we're going to seem more and better tools like these appear soon as good ol Yankee ingenuity revs up. Unless, of course, everyone gets lazy again and leaves themselves wide open untilthe next big expos+¬.

Not a bad idea to have free and premium Gmail services. But not sure many users are willing to pay for web-based email. It would just make them angrier at Google for forcing them to pay $$ for peace of mind.

Published: 2015-03-03Off-by-one error in the ecryptfs_decode_from_filename function in fs/ecryptfs/crypto.c in the eCryptfs subsystem in the Linux kernel before 3.18.2 allows local users to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and system crash) or possibly gain privileges via a crafted filename.

Published: 2015-03-03** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue in customer-controlled software. Notes: none.

How can security professionals better engage with their peers, both in person and online? In this Dark Reading Radio show, we will talk to leaders at some of the security industry’s professional organizations about how security pros can get more involved – with their colleagues in the same industry, with their peers in other industries, and with the IT security community as a whole.